Sir – Dani Rabinowitz (Letters, July 29) set out a carefully argued case, well supported by statistical facts, to show how the cameras have reduced death and injury on our roads.

He also showed that just one death, apart from the human suffering, would cost more than a year’s expenditure on the cameras.

So, it put into perspective the claim by the county council leader, Keith Mitchell, that, by implication, the provision of speed cameras to reduce the human anguish caused by speeding on our roads was just one of those things “that are nice to do”.

He adduced no evidence to show that the cameras did not perform a useful service. And so, with no supporting argument the cameras by diktat are cut.

This is an astonishing example either of ignorance or insensitivity by an elected official. Last week, your columnist, Christopher Gray weighed in — in support of his gung-ho friend, Jeremy Clarkson — to exult over the cameras’ passing. He had had a week in which to refute the Rabinowitz arguments, but chose instead to make a series of unsupported, generalized claims provoked by some unspecified animus.

I would be prepared even to tolerate Mr Gray’s proclivity for self-photographic overkill if he would stick to what he appears to be well-practised at — eating, drinking and chatting about it.

Warwick Armstrong, Oxford